The research process eden et al

395
-1

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
395
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The research process eden et al

  1. 1. The Research Process: Yacat, Jay. (2005). Making sense of being and becoming Filipinos: an indigenous psychology perspective. Philippine Journal of Psychology, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 19-38.
  2. 2. The Research  Making sense of “pagka- Pilipino” (being Filipinos)  N= 38 undergraduate students of UP Diliman; F=18, M=18; mean age= 19.47 years; six cultural groupings; selected based on criteria  Method: ginabayang talakayan (FGDs) composed of 3-5 pax  Findings  Notions of “being Filipino” were shaped by any of three factors: a sense of shared origins (pinagmulan), growing up in a similar cultural milieu (kinalakhan) and a shared consciousness (kamalayan)  Different emphases on the 3 factors by different people and groups; different meanings of “Filipino” and “being Filipino”
  3. 3. Flowchart of the Research Process Identification of the Problem Review of Literature Drafting the Conceptual Framework Designing the Methodology Organizing the Data Validating the Data Analyzing the Data and writing in cohesive form Drafting the synthesis and conclusions Conducting the FGDs Drafting recommendations Consolidating the empirical paper Routing the paper for editing / comments Submission of the paper Rewriting the empirical paper
  4. 4. Identification of the Problem:  What are the current problems in Philippine psychology?  What am I interested in exploring regarding Philippine psychology? Validity/relevance of the problem/issue in current context
  5. 5. Review of Literature:  How is national identity regarded in the study of psychology?  What is the significance of understanding national identity in Philippine context?  What studies have been conducted regarded national identity within Philippine psychology?  What are the dominant discourses regarding national identity? Sufficiency and relevance of literature reviewed vis-à-vis the subject of investigation Relevance of the subject of investigation vis-à-vis the requirement of the journal (PJP) and the issue of the journal (Philippine Psychology)
  6. 6. Drafting the Conceptual Framework:  How will I, as the researcher define national identity?  What empirical investigations on Filipino national identity have been conducted from an indigenous psychological perspective?  Where will my research take-off? From the literature reviewed, what seems to be consistent/inconsistent? Soundness of the framework- whether the constructs or variables of investigation can be studied
  7. 7. Designing the Methodology:  What methodology/ies will be most appropriate/suitable in investigating Filipino national identity from an indigenous psychological perspective?  Who will be my participants, how many, and where will I find them?  How will I analyze my data? Appropriateness of the methodology/ies to the conceptual framework, the participants, and the skill/s of the researcher Level of ease of the methodology to meet the deadline of the study Appropriate selection of participants in terms of criteria
  8. 8. Conducting the FGDs:  When and where will I conduct the FGDs?  Are my guide questions “friendly” enough for my respondents/participants?  Have I collected enough data? Operational costs and schedule of the FGDs Controlling the direction of the discussions to include important topics of investigation but not to exclude other concepts that may arise from the group Practical and psychological preparedness of the researcher and participants
  9. 9. Organizing the Data:  How should I group my data? What are similar and different across my participants?  What important concepts and quotes should I take special note of?  Should I shift language or note exact responses? Completeness of documentation Sorting out which data are relevant/important Deciding on how data should be grouped based on content and without deviating from the conceptual framework Accurate identification of gaps in the data collected
  10. 10. Validating the Data:  Did I capture my participants’ responses accurately? Accuracy in capturing the participants’ responses and their meanings Availability of the participants for the validation of data Controlling the discussions such that it does not deviate from the subject of investigation
  11. 11. Conducting the FGDs for data validation Reorganizing the Data Analyzing the Data …
  12. 12. Analyzing the Data and writing in cohesive form (according to conceptual framework):  What were the verbal and non-verbal responses of my participants?  How do the participants’ responses conform/not conform to literatures? Do these responses affirm established concepts and theories?  What are the possible explanations for the participants’ responses in terms of available empirical literatures, national statistical data, and my personal observation as researcher?  What concepts are unexplainable? What concepts were left hanging/unresolved? Accurate placement of relevant data to the conceptual framework Providing empirical support for data collected in the study Accurate identification of gaps in the data collected
  13. 13. Drafting the synthesis and conclusions:  What to the data generally imply?  What have the study accomplished and how will it contribute to current literature?  Why can’t the current study not explain or expound on some concepts that were raised in the discussions? Accurate accurate identification of general and specific findings of the study
  14. 14. Drafting recommendations:  How can the handing/unresolved concepts be further elaborated in future studies?  Where will the findings of the study be applicable/relevant and how? Identifying future actions that are concrete and viable to further the study/investigation
  15. 15. Consolidating the empirical paper:  Have I included/discussed everything that has been covered in the study clearly and faithfully? Accuracy of technical writing of the paper (e.g., narrative and quantitative parts, bibliography
  16. 16. Routing the paper for editing/ comments of colleagues/ possible experts:  Have I included/discussed everything that has been covered in the study clearly and faithfully? Willingness, level of understanding, and biases of editors on the subject matter
  17. 17. Rewriting the empirical paper:  Have I taken into consideration the comments and concerns raised by my colleagues/experts? Relevance of the comments to the direction I want my study to take on
  18. 18. Analyzing the Data Finalizing the synthesis and conclusions Finalizing the recommendations Finalizing the empirical paper Routing the final paper
  19. 19. Submission of the paper in time for deadline set by the journal:  Have I included/discussed everything that has been covered in the study clearly and faithfully? Timeliness of submission to give room for possible adjustments
  20. 20. Thank You

×